OK this disturbs the crap out of me...

I don't know if you guys have been keeping up with GA News and this months issue of Plane and Pilot. However the debate continues to grow on the use of leaded avgas in the aviation industry. Recently an aviation magazine wrote the following:

"Avgas deposits 1.3 million pounds of brain-damaging lead in the atmosphere each year, in case you wondered why you've been feeling dumber lately."

Which terribly upset Ben Visser a Shell Oil Aviation Gas researcher... He launched an attack on this dude for saying this. And he continued on dispelling the myth that aviation gas could indeed cause brain damage or cancer. Good news, because I work with it a lot - after all I am a CFI and fly 50 hours a month...

So at anyrate the august issue of Plane and Pilot recently came out and sure enough the title is about aviation fuel and one has the "history of Pb" article in it. And wouldn't you know there is a section on the brain damaging and lethal effects of breathing leaded gas exhaust... Well that surely didn't set well. So I read some more of Vissers stuff.

So that being said - do you all have anything to add. Visser gave a speech at Oshkosh stating basically that the lead in avgas is so dilute it isn't even a toxic substance anymore. Is this true? Does anyone have any sources that are reputable. I guess I consider Visser reputable since he has been in the petro industry for 30 years (Although that may mean nothing as he could easily be swayed by special interest.) James Lawrence, he seems to be a columnist for P&P so I have no clue about his credintials.

What are you all thoughts? Is this stuff bad? Who is right, who does one trust? Visser? P&P?

 

I'm thinking if you sucked the tailpipe of any engine regardless of which fuel it was burning you'd still get brain damage.

 

But could one argue that the brain damage was pre-existing in one dumb enough to suck on an exhaust pipe.

 

You say he's reputable since he's been a part of the industry so long. I think that doesn't help his credibility. Just like the tobacco industry, which had experts who claimed that cigarettes don't harm you, I find it hard to trust the oil companies much. He has some stake in it. As oil becomes more scarce, Big Oil is not going to want people to abandon it. But if people are convinced that oil is dangerous, do you think they will just sit and watch. Lawsuits would kill the oil industry before the government could get involved.

 

Actually I think I said...

see the part in parenthesis would indicate a bit of doubt on my part - hence forth I said he "might" for all intents and purposes be reputable, I am just not sure... not the mention the "I guess" part of the first sentence...

 

No offense meant. I just don't really believe he's an objective expert.

 

agree 100% - he could be wrought with special interests... I just wish someone would publish some data - I don't on the other hand trust the P&P author - i just don't want to breath this stuff day in and day out now as a CFI and have it affect me sooner or later...

 

But the Avgas smells so good...

 

ah the smell of jet fuel burning....